Environmental Management

, Volume 44, Issue 6, pp 1099–1120

Assessing Landscape Functions with Broad-Scale Environmental Data: Insights Gained from a Prototype Development for Europe

  • Felix Kienast
  • Janine Bolliger
  • Marion Potschin
  • Rudolf S. de Groot
  • Peter H. Verburg
  • Iris Heller
  • Dirk Wascher
  • Roy Haines-Young
Article

Abstract

We examine the advantages and disadvantages of a methodological framework designed to analyze the poorly understood relationships between the ecosystem properties of large portions of land, and their capacities (stocks) to provide goods and services (flows). These capacities (stocks) are referred to as landscape functions. The core of our assessment is a set of expert- and literature-driven binary links, expressing whether specific land uses or other environmental properties have a supportive or neutral role for given landscape functions. The binary links were applied to the environmental properties of 581 administrative units of Europe with widely differing environmental conditions and this resulted in a spatially explicit landscape function assessment. To check under what circumstances the binary links are able to replace complex interrelations, we compared the landscape function maps with independently generated continent-wide assessments (maps of ecosystem services or environmental parameters/indicators). This rigorous testing revealed that for 9 out of 15 functions the straightforward binary links work satisfactorily and generate plausible geographical patterns. This conclusion holds primarily for production functions. The sensitivity of the nine landscape functions to changes in land use was assessed with four land use scenarios (IPCC SRES). It was found that most European regions maintain their capacity to provide the selected services under any of the four scenarios, although in some cases at other locations within the region. At the proposed continental scale, the selected input parameters are thus valid proxies which can be used to assess the mid-term potential of landscapes to provide goods and services.

Keywords

Land use change Ecosystem goods and services Landscape functions GIS model Continental assessments Mapping Europe Scenario analysis 

References

  1. Appleton J (1996) The experience of landscape. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  2. Bao YH, Wu WL, Wang MX (2007) Disadvantages and future research directions in valuation of ecosystem services in China International. Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 14:372–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beck MB, Ravetz JR, Mulkey LA, Barnwell TO (1997) On the problem of model validation for predictive exposure assessments. Stochastic Hydrology and Hydraulics 11(3):229–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Betts MG, Forbes GJ, Diamond AW (2007) Thresholds in songbird occurrence in relation to landscape structure. Conservation Biology 21(4):1046–1058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bindraban PS, Stoorvogel JJ, Jansen DM, Vlaming J, Groot JJR (2000) Land quality indicators for sustainable land management: proposed method for yield gap and soil nutrient balance. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 81(2):103–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boyd J, Banzhaf S (2006) What are ecosystem services? Discussion paper. Resources for the Future RFF DP 06-02, p 26Google Scholar
  7. Brandt J, Vejre H (2004) Multifunctional landscapes theory, values and history, vol 1. WIT Press, Southhampton, p 276Google Scholar
  8. Bunce RGH, Metzger MJ, Jongman RHG, Brandt J, De Blust G, Elena-Rossello R, Groom GB et al (2008) A standardized procedure for surveillance and monitoring European habitats and provision of spatial data. Landscape Ecology 23:11–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Busch G (2006) Future European agricultural landscapes—what can we learn from existing quantitative land use scenario studies? Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 114:121–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chan KMA, Shaw R, Cameron D, Underwood EC, Daily GC (2006) Conservation planning for ecosystem services. Public Library of Science Biology 4(11):2138–2152Google Scholar
  11. Costanza R, Farber S (2002) Introduction: the dynamics and value of ecosystem services: integrating economic and ecological perspectives. Ecological Economics 41:367–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill RV, Paruelo J, Raskin RG, Sutton P, van den Belt M (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Daily GC (1997) Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  14. De Groot RS (2006) Function-analysis and valuation as a tool to assess land use conflicts in planning for sustainable, multi-functional landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 75:175–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. De Groot RS (1992) Functions of nature: evaluation of nature in environmental planning, management and decision-making. Wolters Noordhoff BV, Groningen, p 345Google Scholar
  16. De Groot RS, Wilson M, Boumans R (2002) A typology for the description, classification and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics 41:393–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Egoh B, Reyers B, Rouget M, Richardson DM, Le Maitre DC, van Jaarsveld AS (2008) Mapping ecosystem services for planning and management. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 127:135–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. European Environmental Agency (EEA) (1998) State of the environment report No 2. A report on the changes in the pan-European environment as a follow-up to ‘Europe’s Environment: The Dobris Assessment’ (1995) requested by the environment Ministers for the whole of Europe to prepare for the fourth ministerial conference in Aarhus, Denmark, June 1998Google Scholar
  19. European Environmental Agency (EEA) (1999) Environmental assessment report No 2. Report on the state of the European environment, Copenhagen, p 446Google Scholar
  20. European Environmental Agency (EEA) (2002a) Corine land cover update 2000: technical guidelines. EEA, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  21. European Environmental Agency (EEA) (2002b) Europe’s biodiversity—biogeographical regions and seas. Internet publication EEA. http://wwweeaeuropaeu/publications/report_2002_0524_154909
  22. European Environmental Agency (EEA) (2003) Mapping the impacts of recent natural disasters and technological accidents in Europe. EEA Environmental issue report 35/2003, Copenhagen, p 47Google Scholar
  23. European Environmental Agency (EEA) (2005a) Vulnerability and adaptation to climate change in Europe. EEA technical report 7/2005, Copenhagen, p 79Google Scholar
  24. European Environmental Agency (EEA) (2005b) European environmental outlook. EEA report 4/2005, Copenhagen, p 87Google Scholar
  25. European Environmental Agency (EEA) (2006) How much bioenergy can Europe produce without harming the environment? Report 7/2006, Copenhagen, p 67Google Scholar
  26. Farber S, Costanza R, Childers DL, Erickson J, Gross K, Grove M, Hopkinson CS, Kahn J, Pincetl S, Troy A, Warren P, Wilson M (2006) Linking ecology and economics for ecosystem management. Bioscience 56:121–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fohrer N, Haverkamp S, Frede HG (2005) Assessment of the effects of land use patterns on hydrologic landscape functions: development of sustainable land use concepts for low mountain range areas. Hydrological Processes 19(3):659–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G, Carpenter SR, Chapin FS, Coe MT, Daily GC, Gibbs HK, Helkowski JH, Holloway T, Howard EA, Kucharik CJ, Monfreda C, Patz JA, Prentice IC, Ramankutty N, Snyder PK (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science 309:570–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gimona A, van der Horst D (2007) Mapping hotspots in landscape functionality; a case study on farmland afforestation in Scotland. Landscape Ecology 22:1255–1264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Glaser BG, Strauss AL (1967) The discovery of grounded theory—strategies for qualitative research. Aldine de Gruyter, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Gustavsson M, Kolstrup E, Seijmonsbergen AC (2006) A new symbol-and-GIS based detailed geomorphological mapping system: renewal of a scientific discipline for understanding landscape development. Geomorphology 77(1–2):90–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Haase D, Walz U, Neubert M, Rosenberg M (2007) Changes to Central European landscapes—analysing historical maps to approach current environmental issues, examples from Saxony, Central Germany. Land Use Policy 24:248–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Haberl H, Erb K-H, Krausmann F, Gaube V, Bondeau A, Plutzar C, Gingrich S, Lucht W, Fischer-Kowalski M (2007) Quantifying and mapping the human appropriation of net primary production in earth’s terrestrial ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 104:12942–12947Google Scholar
  34. Hagen-Zanker A (2006) Map comparison methods that simultaneously address overlap and structure. Journal of Geographical Systems 8(2):165–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Haidvogel DB, Arango HG, Hedstrom K, Beckmann A, Malanotte-Rizzoli P, Shchepetkin AF (2000) Model evaluation experiments in the North Atlantic Basin: simulations in nonlinear terrain-following coordinates. Dynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans 32(3–4):239–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2009) The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In: Raffaelli D, Frid C (eds) Ecosystem ecology: a new synthesis. BES ecological reviews series. CUP, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  37. Hannah L, Midgley G, Andelman S, Araujo M, Hughes G, Martinez-Meyer E, Pearson R, Williams P (2007) Protected area needs in a changing climate. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5(3):131–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Heal E, Barbier B, Boyle KJ, Covich AP, Gloss SP, Hershner CH, Hoehn JP, Pringle CM, Polasky S, Segerson K, Schrader-Frechette K (2005) Valuing ecosystem services: toward better environmental decision-making. The National Academies Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  39. Hein L, van Koppen K, de Groot RS, van Lerland EC (2006) Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 57:209–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Helming K, Tscherning K, König B, Sieber S, Wiggering H, Kuhlman T, Wascher D, Pérez-Soba M, Smeets P, Tabbush P, Dilly O, Hüttl R, Bach H (2008) Ex ante impact assessment of land use changesin European regions—the SENSOR approach. In: Helming K, Pérez-Soba M, Tabbush P (eds) Sustainability impact assessment of land use changes. Springer, Berlin, pp 77–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Helming K, Wiggering H (eds) (2003) Sustainable development of multifunctional landscapes. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  42. Hunziker M (1995) The spontaneous reafforestation in abandoned agricultural lands: perception and aesthetic assessment by locals and tourists. Landscape and Urban Planning 31:399–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hunziker M, Kienast F (1999) Impacts of changing agricultural activities on scenic beauty—a prototype of an automated rapid assessment technique. Landscape Ecology 14:161–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hunziker M, Felber P, Gehring K, Buchecker M, Bauer N, Kienast F (2008) Evaluation of landscape change by different social groups. Results of two empirical studies in Switzerland. Mountain Research and Development 28(2):140–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hunziker M, Buchecker M, Hartig T (2007) Space and place—two aspects of the human-landscape relationship. In: Kienast F, Ghosh S, Wildi O (eds) A changing world—challenges for landscape research. Springer landscape series 8. Springer, Berlin, pp 47–62Google Scholar
  46. Jax K (2005) Function and “functioning” in ecology: what does it mean? Oikos 111(3):643–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kaplan R, Kaplan S (1989) The experience of nature: a psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. Kareiva PM, Watts S, McDonald R, Boucher T (2007) Domesticated nature: shaping landscapes and ecosystems for human welfare. Science 316:1866–1869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kianicka S, Buchecker M, Hunziker M, Müller-Böker U (2006) Locals’ and tourists’ sense of place: a case study in a Swiss Alpine village. Mountain Research and Development 26(1):55–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kienast F, Bolliger J, de Groot RS, Potschin M, Haines-Young R (2006) Development of a landscape functional approach applied to cluster regions. Progress report EU-SENSOR project, p 27Google Scholar
  51. Krönert R, Steinhardt U, Volk M (2001) Landscape balance and landscape assessment. Springer, Heidelberg, p 304Google Scholar
  52. Lee SW, Ellis CD, Kweon BS, Hong SK (2008) Relationship between landscape structure and neighborhood satisfaction in urbanized areas. Landscape and Urban Planning 85(1):60–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lehner B, Döll P, Alcamo J, Heinrichs T, Kaspar F (2006) Estimating the impacts of global change flood and drought risks in Europe: a continental, integrated analysis. Climatic Change 75:273–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Leibowitz SG, Loehle C, Li BL, Preston EM (2000) Modeling landscape functions and effects: a network approach. Ecological Modelling 132:77–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lesta M, Mauring T, Mander Ü (2007) Estimation of landscape potential for construction of surface-flow wetlands for wastewater treatment in Estonia. Environmental Management 40:303–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Liu JG, Dietz T, Carpenter SR, Alberti M, Folke C, Moran E, Pell AN, Deadman P, Kratz T, Lubchenco J, Ostrom E, Ouyang Z, Provencher W, Redman CL, Schneider SH, Taylor WW (2007) Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science 317:1513–1516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lorenz CM, Gilbert AJ, Cofino WP (2001) Indicators for transboundary river management. Environmental Management 28:115–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Maselli F, Chiesi M, Moriondo M et al (2009) Modelling the forest carbon budget of a Mediterranean region through the integration of ground and satellite data. Ecological Modelling 220(3):330–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mayo DG, Spanos A (2004) Methodology in practice: statistical misspecification testing. Philosophy of Science 71(5):1007–1025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Meijl HV, van Rheenen T, Tabeau A, Eickhout B (2006) The impact of different policy environments on agricultural land use in Europe. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 114:21–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Metzger M, Schröter D, Leemans R, Cramer W (2008) A spatially explicit and quantitative vulnerability assessment of ecosystem service change in Europe. Regional Environmental Change 8:91–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Metzger MJ, Rounsevell MDA, Acosta-Michlik L, Leemans R, Schroter D (2006) The vulnerability of ecosystem services to land use change. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 114:69–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) (2005) Millennium ecosystem assessment, business and industry. Synthesis report. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  64. Morse JM (1994) Designing funded qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of qualitative research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 220–235Google Scholar
  65. Mücher CA, Bunce RGH, Jongman RHG, Klijn JA, Koomen A, Metzger MJ, Wascher DM (2003) Identification and characterisation of environments and landscapes in Europe. Alterra rapport 832, Alterra, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  66. Naidoo R, Ricketts TH (2006) Mapping the economic costs and benefits of conservation. PLoS Biology 4:2153–2164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Naidoo R, Balmford A, Costanza R, Fisher B, Green RE, Lehner B, Malcolm TR, Ricketts TH (2008) Global mapping of ecosystem services and conservation priorities. PNAS 105(28):9495–9500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Nakicenovic N, Alcamo J, Davis G, de Vries B, Fenhann J, Gaffin S, Gregory K, Grübler A, Jung TY et al (2000) Special report on emissions scenarios. IPCC report, UNEP/WMOGoogle Scholar
  69. Orians GH (1986) An ecological and evolutionary approach to landscape aesthetics. In: Penning-Rowsell EC, Lowenthal D (eds) Landscape meanings and values. Allen & Unwin, London, pp 3–25Google Scholar
  70. Patton MQ (1990) Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Sage, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  71. Pérez-Soba M, Petit S, Jones L, Bertrand N, Briquel V, Omodei-Zorini L, Contini C, Helming K, Farrington JH, Tinacci Mossello M, Wascher D, Kienast F, de Groot RS (2008) Land use functions—a multifunctionality approach to assess the impact of land use changes on land use sustainability. In: Helming K, Pérez-Soba M, Tabbush P (eds) Sustainability impact assessment of land use changes. Springer, Berlin, pp 376–404Google Scholar
  72. Peterseil J, Wrbka T, Plutzar C, Schmitzberger I, Kiss A, Szerencsits E, Reiter K, Schneider W, Suppan F, Beissmann H (2004) Evaluating the ecological sustainability of Austrian agricultural landscapes—the SINUS approach. Land Use Policy 21(3):307–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Pontius RG, Thontteh O, Chen H (2008) Components of information for multiple resolution comparison between maps that share a real variable. Environmental and Ecological Statistics 15(2):111–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Potschin M, Haines-Young R (2006) ‘Rio +10’, sustainability science and landscape ecology. Landscape and Urban Planning 75(3–4):162–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Raymond CM, Bryan BA, MacDonald DH, Cast A, Strathearn S, Grandgirard A, Kalivas T (2009) Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 68(5):1301–1315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Rees HG, Croker KM, Reynard NS, Gustard A (1997) Estimating the renewable water resource. In: Rees HG, Cole GA (eds) Estimation of renewable water resources in the European Union. Final report to Eurostat (SUP-COM95, 95/5-441931EN). Institute of Hydrology, WallingfordGoogle Scholar
  77. Rienks W (ed) (2008) The future of rural Europe. An anthology based on the results of the Eururalis 20 scenarios. Wageningen University Research and Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency Wageningen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  78. Smith VK, Houtven GV, Pattanayak SK (2002) Benefit transfer via preference calibration: “prudential algebra” for policy. Land Economics 78:132–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Troy A, Wilson MA (2006) Mapping ecosystem services: practical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer. Ecological Economics 60:435–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Turner BLI, Lambin EF, Reenberg A (2007) The emergence of land change science for global environmental change and sustainability. PNAS 104:20666–20671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Turner RK, Daily GC (2008) The ecosystem services framework and natural capital conservation, environmental resource. Econonomics 39:25–35Google Scholar
  82. Verburg PH, Veldkamp A, Rounsevell MDA (2006) Scenario-based studies of future land use in Europe. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 114(1):1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Verburg PH, Eickhout B, van Meijl HA (2008) A multi-scale, multi-model approach for analyzing the future dynamics of European land use. Annals of Regional Science 42:57–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Verburg PH, van Berkel DB, van Doorn AM, van Eupen M, van den Heiligenberg HARM (in press) Trajectories of land use change in Europe: a model-based exploration of rural futures. Landscape Ecology. doi:101007/s10980-009-9347-7
  85. Verburg PH, van de Steeg J, Veldkamp A, Willemen L (2009) From land cover change to land function dynamics: a major challenge to improve land characterization. Journal of Environmental Management 90(3):1327–1335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Visser H, de Nijs T (2006) The Map Comparison Kit. Environmental Modelling and Software 21(3):346–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wallace KJ (2007) Classification of ecosystem services: problems and solutions. Biological Conservation 139:235–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Westhoek HJ, van den Berg M, Bakkes JA (2006) Scenario development to explore the future of Europe’s rural areas. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 114(1):7–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Willemen L, Verburg PH, Hein L, van Mensvoort MEF (2008) Spatial characterization of landscape functions. Landscape and Urban Planning 88(1):34–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. With KA, Crist TO (1995) Critical thresholds in species’ responses to landscape structure. Ecology 76(8):2446–2459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Wrbka T, Erb KH, Schulz NB, Peterseil J, Hahn C, Haberl H (2004) Linking pattern and process in cultural landscapes. An empirical study based on spatially explicit indicators. Land Use Policy 21(3):289–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Wu J, Jenerette GD, David JL (2003) Linking land-use change with ecosystem processes: a hierarchical patch dynamic model. In: Guhathakurta S (ed) Integrated land use and environmental models. Springer, Berlin, pp 99–119Google Scholar
  93. Zhao M, Heinsch FA, Nemani RR, Running SW (2005) Improvements of the MODIS terrestrial gross and net primary production global data set. Remote Sensing of Environment 95:164–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Felix Kienast
    • 1
  • Janine Bolliger
    • 1
  • Marion Potschin
    • 2
  • Rudolf S. de Groot
    • 3
  • Peter H. Verburg
    • 4
  • Iris Heller
    • 1
  • Dirk Wascher
    • 5
  • Roy Haines-Young
    • 2
  1. 1.Swiss Federal Research Institute WSLBirmensdorfSwitzerland
  2. 2.Centre for Environmental Management, School of GeographyUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamEngland
  3. 3.Environmental Systems Analysis GroupWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Land Dynamics GroupWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Alterra-Landscape CentreWageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations